Tuesday, January 12, 2010

UKIP's increase seems to be stable

If a General Election were held tomorrow, which one of the following parties would you be most likely to support in your constituency?

Which has UKIP polling 5% nationally with a couple of high spots, the South (not London) at 7% and at 6% at the North. We are doing particularly badly in London at only 3%. The figures get more interesting when you factor in likely to vote where UKIP is now at 7% nationally the South and 8% in the South.

Small beer I might agree, when the Tories are looking at 40% in the same graph, but given that the much vaunted Greens languish at 3% in the poll it begins to look quite good. Now I ahve no idea what this does to Tory/Labour marginals and/or Tory/Lib Dem marginals but I would expect that the campaign team in Tory HQ might be looking at the figures with a certain queasiness.

Particularly given the generally accepted figures of 27 seats lost to UKIP last time on far smaller figures. And even more so when only 2% of those questioned for this poll voted for UKIP in 2005.

Cameron's evasions, dissembling and so on on the Lisbon Treaty, and immigration and his head in the sand approach to the way that the man made global warming debate is heading may well have something to do with this.

15 comments:

That 27 figure was always as suspect as the figure we came up for for how much control the EU had.

Given that Farage and most of UKIP have spent most of the past few years insisting that UKIP takes as many votes from Labour as from Conservatives, it seems a little illogical to claim that every single seat where Conservatives lost by fewer votes than UKIP polled.

As someone who lives and campaigns in one of the seats on that list, I am absolutely certain that UKIP was not the reason why Conservatives lost the seat in 2005. I don't think Cameron's team are any more worried about UKIP polling in low single figures than we are worried about the UKIP threat locally.UKIP will pick up a few votes - it may be as high as 5% or it may be closer to the 3% that ICM were reporting - both clearly within a margin of error of what UKIP polled last time.Either way, I think a good proportion of those votes would probably have come from voters who would otherwise have abstained. The remainder would have split, in varying degrees, between the three main Parties and the BNP.

Mike I agree with almost everything you say here. That 27 figure has been accepted by most but I do remain sceptical. Evidence from places such as Harwich suggest other dynamics.That being said, if the polls are anything to go by, then despite UKIP picking up a broad swathe in the Euros, there seems to be greater concentration in Tory areas. As a matter of interest, if the polling remains at 7% or thereabouts in some areas, I doubt team Cameron will be as sanguine as you suggest. ICMs poll figures are definately the lowest recent figures. But cleave to them if you wish.

My experience of campaigning is that disaffected Labour voters (if they vote at all) tend to turn to the BNP. The BNP also seems to suck the ex-Labour voters from UKIP, leaving UKIP a party supported increasingly by previous abstainers and ex-Tory and ex-LibDem voters.

So the original claim by UKIP was true - that their supporters came from all parties and none - but now I think UKIP can seriously damage the Tories. And the Tories deserve serious damage.

It is always the same after a long period in office by Labour - they have spent up; the economy is on the rocks; and they ignore the critical functions of the whole nation (at the moment: power stations, roads, police, armed services, farming, manufacturing, etc, etc) in favour of will o' the wisps (currently: political correctness, social engineering, 'equality', etc)

Below is an extract from the Green GE manifesto of 2005. All, except perhaps point 5, of those aims can only be accomplished by an extraordinary top down imposition of centralised control. Read the detailed explanations to see.

The Greens are also fanatical believers in the increasingly discredited AGW and the totally discredited EU. Greens are clearly socialist/fascist but not even liberal.

Green Party steps for 2005-20101. Use the tax system to reduce material inequality2. Replace VAT with eco-taxes3. Tame the tiger: promote economic localisation4. Create employment and defend workers’ rights5. Measure what matters: replace GDP as a means of assessing wealth6. Introduce a Citizen's Income and Citizen's Pension (see section 3)

Our system of government is in crisis. It has lost the confidence of most people, many of whom no longer vote. Spin and sleaze dominate national politics.

Decisions are taken in secret and far away from the communities most affected. Archaic elements like Monarchy and the House of Lords remain. We have an unfair electoral system and almost alone in the world we have no written constitution. Power and influence have been taken from cash-starved local councils. It is hardly surprising that this system cannot face up to the long term decisions needed to create a sustainable and just society.

The Green Party wants to fundamentally change the way this system works - to modernise and decentralise it, and make it fairer, more open and more accountable. Decisions must be taken at the most appropriate level to ensure proper accountability to those people affected by them. This means more local and regional decision-making and greater public participation at all levels.

The constitutional functions of the monarchy should be abolished and the House of Lords should be replaced by a wholly elected second chamber. A new written constitution should be devised defining the rights and responsibilities of citizens. Elections should be by a system of proportional representation. The voting age should be reduced to 16 years. A ‘recall' system needs introducing - where politicians must step down to face re-election if petitioned to do so by a significant proportion of electors. We recognise the importance of addressing issues of common concern at the European and international levels, but not through a European super-state or inappropriate global bodies like the World trade Organisation (WTO) which undermine local democracy and global justice. Each function of government has an appropriate level, and defence would remain a national responsibility.

For democracy to work properly people must be able to play an active part and hold their elected representatives to account. But as well as real democracy we need policies for social and economic justice and protection of the planet.

notes the proposals being developed to introduce an ID card with biometrics for the UK; believes that the proposals are a waste of public resources; believes that they will not be effective in tackling organised crime, people-smuggling or terrorism, believes that proposals for such cards to be compulsory, with potential stop and inspect powers for the authorities, have worrying civil liberties notes that the Welsh language has not been fully taken into account; strongly proposes that the plans be abandoned forthwith; will encourage peaceful non-cooperation on a group and individual basis to compulsory ID cards Conference instructs GPEX to publicise the Party's views on this matter.

Of course "The Greens are also fanatical believers in ... the totally discredited EU."

These are extracts from their 2009 Euro election manifesto, below. It is irrelevant whether they oppose the Euro - all UK parties that I know of do - but the Greens clearly support the UK's continued subjection by the EU. In contrast UKIP (and some other small parties) want us out completely. The electorate has been fooled for too long with the witterings that the Greens/Tories/Labour don't want the EU to be a superstate - it already is.

Greens: "The European Union will be part of our changing future."

Greens: " ... we believe cooperation builds peace, as it has done in Europe. Our geography means that we are part of Europe."

Greens: "However there are essential matters ... where we agree that EU action is appropriate."

The Greens' policies I have cited all require enormous top down political power to implement. So Greens are not merely fascist/socialist, but hypocrites too, for decorating their manifesto with the word "decentralising" when their policies depend on the opposite.

As for AGW: when that Gadarene swine like delusion finally collapses so will the Greens - with any luck.

The Tories are opposed to ID cards too. And so am I. That is insufficient reason to vote Green.

Finally, an elected head of state can only be a political figure and therefore divisive. The Monarch in contrast can be appreciated by all, irrespective of political affiliations.

Apart from halting ID cards (what about all the databases?) most Green policies must be anathema to any libertarian or UKIP voter.

UKIP simply needs more publicity. Their message is the most attractive of all the parties if only it can get it across. The best hope is for Lord Pearson to use his powers of persuasion to enlist the support of some well-known peers (Tebbitt would be top of the list) to give the party more credibility.